Clinton, as you well know by now, is not an appropriate example of a lefty or a liberal. The reason, as you must have heard on the grape vine at some
stage, is that Clinton is a CORPORATIST. It is fundamentally impossible to be genuinely liberal, genuinely left minded in terms of politics if one
also happens to be involved in corporatist concerns, like making money by investing in the money markets, or in making money by owning things,
whether it be intellectual property or real estate. People with GENUINE right to refer to themselves by any of these descriptors, eschew those sorts
of pursuits, because they are of the opinion that such things are simply amoral, beneath them, and unhealthy for the society in which they live, and
they are absolutely right to think that, because it happens to be true.

The Clinton family do not hold any such view however. They appear for all the world to behave as if they are perfectly happy to continue to rake in
vast quantities of wealth, just because they own things, and can play the markets, and can indulge in the amoral methodologies the wealthy use to
remain that way artificially, and in excess of what is required to maintain them and their families for generations, leave alone the short term.
However, Clinton is a pure irrelevance. The Republican voters mention her a damned sight more than the left ever do, and there is a really good reason
for that. While the right wingers out there may decry and denounce her, Hillary Clinton is actually far more relevant to Republican mindsets and
thinking than she ever is the left of politics, in any country, regardless of whether we are talking about the United States or the Unite Arab
Emirates. Her interests are economic and in terms of what she can get, a decidedly right wing favoured idea, the greed is good mentality. She shares
that in common with Trump, as it happens...

Which is precisely why she and actual lefties do not see eye to eye on the issues. Actual lefties do not actually give a damn about how well the top
one percent of "earners" are doing, because actual lefties and liberals know that no one in that "earning" bracket, apart from MAYBE Elon Musk, is
actually working hard enough to be "earning" anything like his annual take home. Lefties understand that what regular people mean by earning, and what
the super wealthy mean by earning, are two entirely different things. The left understand that regular people, sweating, crying and bleeding for their
work, putting in hard, physical labour, or long painful hours on their feet, is earning their pay. They also understand that what the top one percent
of earners do, is not earning in truth, but by any other measure would be called stealing. Their efforts are PATHETIC and minimal, their rewards
unnatural and obscenely oversized.

Clinton would neither publicly or privately agree with that sentiment. But there are political figures in the United States who would agree broadly
with that statement, especially about the difference between earning and stealing.

Clinton would also not agree that classical economics is a massive hazard to the stability and the long term security of jobs, wealth, business and
industry, as well as the banking systems of the US and indeed the rest of the world. She would be wrong to disagree with that notion, since it is pin
point accurate, but she would disagree. She has too much riding on those booms and busts to publicly agree that a better system must be found to
organise industry and banking, a better structure must be built for the economy, one that cannot boom or bust, one which is not constant growth
dependent in order to maintain itself. There is no lefty worthy of being called such a thing, who would advocate for continuing to rely on the current
model of economics, who would suggest that permitting industries and businesses to be structured so as to demand constant growth, is either
reasonable, sustainable economically or environmentally, or desirable in any way.

Clinton will not advocate for the increase in worker power necessary to improve the lot of the workforce, she will not advocate for the significant
improvements in pay and hours that would be necessary in most businesses, to ensure that everyone, working any position in a company, can earn an
amount which overmatches inflation and will permit them to feed themselves and a family, put a roof over their heads and keep them in enough clothing
to be safe in summer and winter, while putting a little something away for a rainy day. She will not do that because it would cost her and the
businesses her money is invested in, more than she wants to lose.

BUT... Clinton is not the issue here, because she is not President. And I think it is very important to understand that while Clinton would not
advocate for the real working class folk and their needs, the real lefties and their beliefs about industry and economy because they would damage HER
stock portfolio, she would not advocate AGAINST these things, these lefty ideals, certainly not openly and with great fanfare.

But again... she is not a lefty, and nor are the agenda pushers at the DNC who stiffed Sanders. Now, Sanders believes in advocating for the left, for
the liberal, for the people at street level who see the rot and want good, wholesome, unselfish, corporate free answers to the problems posed by
modern life. They want corporations forced to pay them all a proper wage, rather than allowing subsidisation of the working poor, for example. They
want the rights of the one, to be the rights of all, shared in common without exception or exclusion. They want the economy to be set up to remove the
insistence on growth per year, replacing it with something that sees STABILITY, rather than stagnation. And they are damned right to do so. There ARE
people in American politics who are prepared to advocate for that position, but none of them are in the Clinton family, and if you think these things
are a threat to you, then you need to stop looking at Clinton as if she is a problem for you. Simply put, Clinton is about as selfish as Trump, and
about as egotistical. But she is not the person people who matter are looking to, as a representative for the left. She cannot represent the left,
because she is not a part of it. Simple as. Corporatist=right wing, no matter the letter that comes before your name on the tag line in the nightly
news.

They need customers. If you are not reliant to government, then it's difficult to justify their existence. So they create situations where people
become reliant, for life.

And people defend this crap.

I am reliant on toilet paper for most of my life because it makes me feel secure when wiping my bum or blowing my nose. I feel sad for democrat
supporters who are reliant on being fed sh*t for life and their toilet paper has been taken away.

I feel the same way when Trump supporters think a silver spoon fed narcissistic pathological liar actually cares about them or the rest of the
country.

I care more about his actions than what may or may not be his actual concerns (which are virtually unknowable, objectively speaking). He's worked/is
working to keep more of our earned money in our pockets and doing what he campaigned on. Admittedly, he hasn't been perfect but nobody is or could
possibly be

And I think if he could focus just a bit more on unifying vs. exploiting division for political gains (which will likely be the post-election pivot,
assuming we win) I think he could be one of the greatest POTUS in history - especially if ranked by promises kept. He fights for America, he does what
he says he is going to do and that is what counts

What does a working middle aged man with a good job and a young woman with three small children whos husband ran off and left with another Woman. a
Senior who has enough money to either stay warm or eat have in common?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.